These comments are responses
to the questions listed below,
which were generated in regard to the Donald Moe - Larry Martin
Interview of 06-25-10..

The Questions:

1. (7.0 average
response)Increase Contributions? One possible approach to reducing
unfunded pension liabilities: the Minnesota Legislature should
increase retirement contributions by public employees and their state
and local governments.

2. (6.6
average response)End Defined Benefits? A second possible approach to reducing
unfunded pension liabilities: the state should gradually replace--for
non-public safety employees-- public pensions that guarantee specific
benefits with a plan where benefits are based exclusively on amounts
contributed and investments earned.

3. (5.1
average response)Transfer Oversight to Governor? Administrative responsibility
for public pensions in Minnesota should be transferred to the Governor
from boards of the many pension plans.

4. (7.9 average
response)Add Public Members? Public members of varied backgrounds
should be added to the membership of the Legislative Commission on
Pensions and Retirement.

5. (7.7 average
response)Extend Retirement Age? Instead of promoting early retirement
the state should eliminate barriers to an extended work life and
provide incentives to encourage the retention of older workers.

6. (1.2 average
response)Use Pension Funds to Balance Budget? Pension funds should be
considered as a source of revenue to help balance Minnesota's biennial
budget.

Vici Oshiro

Interesting
discussion, but I'm not ready to make choices without further
discussion.

Chuck
Slocum (10) (10) (5) (10) (5) (0)

The state must
eliminate unfunded liabilities over a reasonable period of time. I
have long admired Senator Moe’s insight and courage on these issues
and believe that a combination of the suggestions (1-6) could secure
the unfunded liabilities of the state and permanently reposition the
system for the long term. I also believe that public employees
should be offered an “op-out” to create their own retirement plans.

Kevin
L. Edberg
(5) (10) (8) (10) (8) (1)

When I was a school
board member, we transitioned certain benefit programs in exactly this
way, shifting new employees to defined contribution programs and away
from defined benefit. It makes great sense. The speakers are correct
that there is too much political influence exerted on pensions by
employee groups. Changing that balance of power is critical to getting
better policy. The term "non-public safety employees" was confusing,
as I first thought that meant "private" safety employees.

Chuck
Lutz (8) (9) (7) (8) (8) (0)

Tom
Triplett (7) (10) (3) (5) (9) (0)

Tom
Spitznagle (10) (10) (7) (8) (5) (0)

David
Beal (5) (5) (7) (9) (9) (1)

This was a solid,
highly commendable effort to explore and surface for public debate an
increasingly serious issue. That said, at least two additional facets
of this topic need to be added to the discussion. The first is to what
extent have the funding ratios for the state's "Big Three" pension
funds deteriorated in recent years and why. The second is how much of
a role have the lower returns that the State Board of Investment has
faced in recent years played in lowering these funding ratios. These
and other related issues are so important that they rate a follow-up
session, to pursue this topic more completely.

Tom Hilber

Public Pensioners
got a caddy plan the private sector can only dream about. Share the
pain. [I] do not feel investments of these funds that lost to greedy
investments and losses should be funded by bailouts by tax payers. No
one is bailing out my losses in equity in my homestead or compounded
interest on my credit card debt. Convince me this is not [going to]
happen again in [Minnesota.]

Sally
Olsen

You may or may not
know that I am a member of the Board of Directors of the Minnesota
State Retirement System. I am one of three Governor's appointees on
that Board. I was first appointed by Governor Jesse Ventura in 2001,
and reappointed by Governor Tim Pawlenty.

After reading your
survey, I forwarded it to Dave Bergstrom, Executive Director of the
Minnesota State Retirement System, as I believe there were certain
things in the discussion that did not represent some of the facts
concerning the pension boards and plans as I know them.

It is my
understanding that Mr. Bergstrom will respond to the survey with some
important information that will assist Civic Caucus Members in having
a better understanding of our Minnesota State Retirement System
pension program in Minnesota.

Public Pension
issues are vitally important to many former, present and future
employees of Minnesota's state and local governments. Thus, I believe
having as much good information regarding these plans as possible will
help everyone understand them better.

Thanks for your
consideration.

Bert
LeMunyon (2.5) (7.5) (7.5) (5) (10) (0)

5.
Extend Retirement Age? The state should
align retirement ages with those of the private sector.

Anonymous (10) (10) (10) (10) (10) (10)

Anonymous (7.5) (7.5) (7.5) (10) (10) (0)

Anonymous (10) (10) (5) (7.5) (5) (10)

1.
Increase Contributions?
But this approach should include transitioning to defined contribution
plans. Approach #1 and #2 should not be mutually exclusive.

2. End
Defined Benefits?
This approach should also include increasing public employee
contributions for their defined benefit plans. Approach #1 and #2 are
not be mutually exclusive.

4. Add
Public Members? Public members
should include those from the private sector. Especially from large
corporations that have experience transitioning from defined benefit
to defined contribution plans.

6. Use
Pension Funds to Balance Budget?
To help address budget issues (both short and long term), the state
should increase employee contributions and transition to defined
contribution plans. If this is what you mean by "source of revenue",
then I strongly agree.

Mark
Jenkins (7.5) (7.5) (7.5) (7.5) (7.5) (0)

1.
Increase Contributions?
I support a full shift to contribution-based retirement plans for
newly hired employees.

2. End
Defined Benefits?
If by gradually, you mean replacing the current plans with
contribution-based plans for all new hires, then yes, I support that.
I consider that a hard cut over, recognizing that the benefit to the
unfunded liabilities will be gradual.

3.
Transfer Oversight to Governor?
Responsibility for all plans should be centralized. I would like to
explore other options for where this group would report though.

4. Add
Public Members? Absolutely. I would
like to see pension professionals and actuaries from any of
Minnesota's many nationally leading financial institutions invited to
share their expertise on this commission.

5.
Extend Retirement Age?
I agree that we should eliminate incentives for early retirement and
that we should eliminate barriers to qualified employees continuing to
work while they can contribute. I do not favor incentives to keep
employees beyond some arbitrary retirement age. Employees should feel
welcome to work as long as they wish without the expectation of added
financial benefits.

6. Use
Pension Funds to Balance Budget?
Absolutely not. Employee pensions are a promise to pay from the state
in exchange for an employee's hard work. Any withdrawals from this
account that do not go towards keeping that promise, threaten the
state's ability to keep that promise.

Jay
Kiedrowski (10) (10) (7.5) (10) (5) (0)

John
DeSantis (7.5) (2.5) (0) (10) (2.5) (0)

4. Add Public
Members? This could bring more knowledge into the process. The
concern I would have would be the process used for appointing

5. Extend
Retirement Age? I have an education background and I believe the
early retirement programs open up jobs for the younger professionals.
However, it can also create a shortage.

Dave
Broden (10) (10) (10) (10) (10) (0)

1. Increase
contributions? Public pensions need to be structured similarly
to the private sector with some consideration of the risks to safety
of law enforcement and fire personnel. A benefits-driven approach
simply is not affordable in any way.

2. End Defined
Benefits? Benefits should be based on the amount contributed.

3. Transfer
Oversight to Governor? This is key to establish some degree of
objectiveness and separate governance from those who use it.

4. Add Public
Members? Public membership is a must; the pensions spend public
funds and we must separate in some way those who get the funds from
those who pay--a balanced approach is key.

5. Extend
Retirement Age? Retirement must [be] viewed different today as
living longer and more effectively we must extend the work force
experience and use our expertise --we need people to continue to be
pay-inners not just extractors of funds. There is a workforce shortage
and best to fix that is by using wise experience.

6. Use Pension
Funds to Balance Budget? This is mixing apples and oranges. This
simply solves nothing and makes matters worse.

Anonymous (5) (5) (7.5) (5) (2.5) (0)

2. End Defined
Benefits? Now that public sector wages are getting closer to
private sector, the significant pension may upset the apple cart.
But, the current economy and ignorant views of government employees
has hurt their wages and benefits, thus making the defined pension
more fair.

John
Sievert (10) (7.5) (10) (10) (10) (2.5)

6. Use Pension
Funds to Balance Budget? This would be a mess - just like
Congress borrowing out of the Social Security Trust Fund so that there
is really nothing there. That has the potential to explode.

Anonymous (10) (10) (10) (10) (10) (10)

Darrell Pettis (7.5) (2.5) (0) (7.5) (7.5) (0)

1. Increase
contributions? During the past 5 years, contribution to PERA
been increasing for both the employer and the employee. Increasing
the contributions is not a new idea.

2. End Defined
Benefits? Since the 1980's the public has been sold a bill of
goods called the 401(k). When the 401(k)'s were introduced, they were
intended to be a supplement to traditional pensions not a replacement
of pension. They have replaced pensions. With the market downturn in
2008, and the damage it did to individuals retirement accounts, the
defined contribution pension the best alternative?

3. Transfer
Oversight to Governor? Governors are political animals.

5. Extend
Retirement Age? For new employees who started working after July
1, 1989, the largest public pensions, PERA - Coordinated and MSRS,
eliminated the rule of 90 for all new employees. The three most
recent retirements in my department were all 65 or older. Many public
employees who are eligible for early retirement chose to stay until 65
due to health care costs.

Anonymous (0) (0) (2.5) (7.5) (10) (0)

2. End Defined
Benefits? If the State is going to decide where the monies are
invested, the State should hold the risk. Let the employee invest
their contribution and their share of their employer's contribution
the best THEY see fit, then that will leave the State off the hook.
Whatever the changes, we must look at a grandfather clause of 10-15
years.

5. Extend
Retirement Age? Why do we not have a DROP?

Rich
Gehrman (7.5) (2.5) (0) (7.5) (10) (0)

1. Increase
contributions? The incentives to work in government are weak as
it is and it's hard to attract great talent so I would be cautious
about reducing one of the few advantages government has in recruiting
employees. On a modest scale though this obviously would be necessary
to keep the current system solvent.

2. End Defined
Benefits? Same reason as above, this is one of the few
recruitment advantages government has. Also, in another 10 years the
disadvantages of getting rid of pension funds in the private sector
will be more painfully evident as increasing numbers of elderly are
unable to support themselves.

3. Transfer
Oversight to Governor? Too much opportunity to have ideological
whiplash as governors use pensions to make political statements.

4. Add Public
Members? Not sure what would be the argument against this.

5. Extend
Retirement Age? Since public retirement benefits are generally
quite good there doesn't seem to be much advantage to early retirement
from the public's point of view.

6. Use Pension
Funds to Balance Budget? It's important to pay as you go.

Elaine Voss (7.5) (5) (0) (5) (7.5) (0)

2. End Defined
Benefits? Why continue for public safety employees? All or
none.

3. Transfer
Oversight to Governor? Too unsteady a process to be left to the
governor.

Peter Hennessey (7.5) (7.5) (0) (0) (7.5) (0)

1. Increase
contributions? You forgot to add, “put it in a lock box”. You
forgot to add, “the amounts paid out will depend on the amount paid in
and will not be covered from current contributions.

2. End Defined
Benefits? Ah, this is where you added it... Good job. What is
this qualification, "gradually" and "for non-public safety employees"?
What is that? How about, “all government employees?”

3. Transfer
Oversight to Governor? How about professional pension fund
managers?

4. Add Public
Members? How about just professional pension fund managers?
Definitely not politicians.

5. Extend
Retirement Age? You don't turn stupid just because you hit 65.
And some hit stupid a lot earlier. But it really is unfair to
double-dip or triple-dip. All this money comes from one captive
source, the taxpayers, so the choice should be limited to government
job or pension, not both. There are too many stories about people
retiring from one government job at full pension, getting another
government job that comes with its own pension, then getting a third
job while drawing pensions from the previous two. Sometime in life
one really should do some productive work, i.e., in the private
sector, where the value of your work is shown by someone such as a
customer willing to pay for your goods or services.

6. Use Pension
Funds to Balance Budget? Absolutely not. Reserves set aside for
future payout should not be touched for any reason.

Michael J. Germain (0) (0) (0) (2.5) (0) (0)

1. Increase
contributions? This is just a cowardly approach to undermine
benefits that were collectively bargained for, and the money for which
was squandered by the fiscal stupidity and brain-dead budget process
that has characterized the Pawlenty era.

2. End Defined
Benefits? Again, this is an incredibly stupid idea. Where have
the defined-contribution plans of most employees in the private sector
ended up? Gone in a puff of greedy Wall Street, and smoke and
mirrors. This is just yet another dumb idea that lines the pockets of
greedy individuals who have already raped and pillaged the economy.
After the crash of the economy, in case you haven't noticed, people
don’t have any retirement savings.

3. Transfer
Oversight to Governor? Who but a right wing extremist would even
consider this to be anything other than a dumb idea.

4. Add Public
Members? Public members of varied backgrounds? [Who] have their
own axes to grind and are accountable to no one? Dumb idea.

5. Extend
Retirement Age? What, we are supposed to work into our 70's and
80's to satisfy some brain dead ideologue?

6. Use Pension
Funds to Balance Budget? Rather than raising taxes on people who
have made huge amounts of money while the economy tanks, raid pension
funds? Back in the 1970's and 1980's this was considered stealing.

Ray
Schmitz (10) (2.5) (2.5) (10) (7.5) (0)

1. Increase
contributions? The only argument against this is the cost to the
taxpayers, but there does not appear to be any other choice at this
time. Reduce them when the market is better or other factors appear
to be balancing the books.

2. End Defined
Benefits? Seems as if this the future of pensions, but does it
really guarantee a successful system? I think not.

3. Transfer
Oversight to Governor? Wonder if this would fix anything; suspect
not. Many of the problems are caused by the politics in the
legislature.

4. Add Public
Members? This should really be a professional group from across
the spectrum.

5. Extend
Retirement Age? Having retired in my late sixties I can speak to
this with some experience. Better to keep at it until post 65 or even
70. Part of the problem as you note is early retirement and benefits
for early retirees in police and fire, and they are not limited to
those who we might not want serving into old age, so of the recent
additions to this group are not in the proper class.

6. Use Pension
Funds to Balance Budget? What a poor idea.

Anonymous (7.5) (2.5) (0) (10) (7.5) (0)

Bob
White (10) (10) (10) (10) (10) (0)

C.
M. Denny (5) (10) (10) (10) (10) (0)

R.C. Angevine (7.5) (2.5) (0) (10)
(7.5) (0)

2. End Defined
Benefits? If the state is going to push more of the pension
responsibility unto the employee then I would offer that corresponding
government salaries must also increase. As the spouse of a long time,
now retired, teacher I would offer that one of the trade-offs for low
teacher salaries was the prospect in retirement of a good, solid
pension.

3. Transfer
Oversight to Governor? I am not in favor of putting control of
all pensions in the hands of a single individual. I might favor an
agency or commission to oversee all pension plans.

Mina
Harrigan (10) (10) (2.5) (5) (10) (0)

3. Transfer
Oversight to Governor? Proposals need legislative approval. But
any that present potential financial liability to tax payers should be
under state control.

Joe
Mansky (7.5) (5) (5) (10) (10) (2.5)

2. End Defined
Benefits? By closing the plan and not bringing in any new
revenue, would this place at risk the people who are still collecting
pensions under the existing system in 20-30 years? If paying future
costs are the issue, why not just reduce future annual adjustments to
persons collecting pensions?

5. Extend
Retirement Age? This needs to happen. The fact that progressively
fewer people who are eligible are taking advantage of rule of 90 would
indicate that there is a need and in many cases a desire to work past
the conventional retirement age. Who can afford to take a 50% pay cut
at age 62 or even at 65? And if the demographic projections are
correct, how do we replace the skills lost by persons leaving the work
force?

Dennis McCoy (2.5) (0) (0) (7.5) (5) (0)

1. Increase
contributions? There have already been significant increases to
both groups in the last several years.

2. End Defined
Benefits? Public safety employees must be included in any
proposed solution as they already have a more expensive system which
has been regularly abused and allows people to retire as early as age
50. Evolving to a defined contribution system is inevitable.

3. Transfer
Oversight to Governor? If you are attempting to avoid political
influence, this would be the worst possible option.

4. Add Public
Members? Public members should be included.

5. Extend
Retirement Age? This really depends on how much carrot or stick
is involved.

6. Use Pension
Funds to Balance Budget? The legislature is too short sighted and
partisan to manage this responsibility. I suspect they would raid the
funds and never replenish them as happened in the early 1980's. If
they managed the pension funds as capably as they've managed the state
budget it would be a disaster for anyone relying on those funds.

Anonymous (0) (10) (10) (5) (10) (0)

The Civic Caucusis a non-partisan,
tax-exempt educational organization. The Core participants
include persons of varying political persuasions, reflecting years of leadership in politics and
business. Click here to see a short personal background of each.